RE: Draft minutes from Tove: draft-dachille-inter-region-path-setup-04.txt

["Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>]

Adrian,

That draft-dachille directly addresses TE WG requirements
is a point that is the basis of the draft itself! And,
finds mention in the introduction of draft-dachille.

And, it has been raised in the extensive discussions on this
draft after Seoul.

I mentioned that the current minutes reflect this, since it
appeared a bit strange that the minutes mentioned that for
draft decnodder, while not stating that for draft-dachille.

It may leave a reader looking at the minutes (which I assume
is a lot of the people on the list) with the impression that draft-dachille
does not address TEWG requirements. In fact, quite the
contrary!

-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 3:39 AM
> To: v.sharma@ieee.org; Ugo Monaco
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Alessio D'Achille; Daniele Alì; Marco Listanti;
> Tove Madsen
> Subject: Re: Draft minutes from Tove:
> draft-dachille-inter-region-path-setup-04.txt
>
>
> Vishal,
>
> This is a good point that you should definitely be raising in the
> discussions about your
> draft.
>
> I can't however, update the minutes to reflect things you would
> have liked to have been
> said at the meeting.
>
> A
>
> > >  > -- Differs from 11, addresses requirements from TEWG draft
> > >
> > > We want stress that ARO addresses requirements from the TEWG draft too
> >
> > > OK. This is a punctuation error in the minutes.
> >
> > >"-- Differs from 11, addresses requirements from TEWG draft"
> >
> > >should read
> >
> > >"-- Differs from 11
> > > --Addresses requirements from TEWG draft"
> >
> > >We will update the minutes.
> >
> > I think it would be good for the minutes to then also note that
> >
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dachille-inter-region-path-setup-0
> 4.txt
>
> also directly address the requirements from the TE requirements
> draft, as below.
>
> > (draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-09.txt), in particular is in
> > accordance with Section:
> >
> > 5.1.1. Inter-AS MPLS TE Operations and Interoperability
> > 5.1.5.  Re-optimization
> > 5.1.8. Scalability and Hierarchical LSP Support
> > 5.1.11. Extensibility
> > 6. Security Considerations
> >
> > This was also the basis on which we got some good feedback
> > from the service provider community in the extensive discussions
> > before, during, and after Seoul.
> > May be we need to better point out this issue in the next version of the
> > draft.